Legal Opinion
In Re Barge
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Decided April 25, 1938No. Patent Appeal 3930PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BLAND, Associate Judge.
All of appellant’s claims for a patent were rejected by the Primary Examiner of the United States Patent Office, which rejection was affirmed by the Board of Appeals for substantially the same reasons as those assigned by the Examiner. From the decision of the Board, appeal has been taken here. The appealed claims are numbered 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20.
Claim 13 reads as follows: “13. A shoe sole attaching apparatus including, in combination, a base containing a liquid reservoir and having a flexible bed resting on the liquid in the reservoir, means for applying…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re SlepianCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
- In re IsherwoodCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1917
- In Re SwanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1931
3Cited by13 opinions
- In Re CopemanCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1943
- In re OckertCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1957
- In Re ChristmannCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1942
- Application of Howard G. RogersCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1968
- Smith v. Kingsland, Commissioner of PatentsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.